Vol. III • No. 1 • August 1999

Labor Dept Conspires Against Union
Secy Herman’s Labor Chief Leads Anti-union Attack
Secy Herman’s labor chief Jerry Lelchook has again conspired with top DOL management to violate the contract with American Federation of Government Employees Local No. 12. This anti-union conspiracy involves a redesign of the Employment and Training Administration. The contract requires that DOL bargain its plan with the Union. The Union is required by law to protect the rights and interests of employees in such cases. Additionally, the Union seeks to make gains and improvements for its members in these bargainings.

In this instance, a “cc” of the final plan for the redesign of ETA was sent to Union President Russ Binion this July 27 by the ETA human resources unit, with a “cc” to Lelchook. The next day, the Union wrote Secy Herman’s labor chief requesting bargaining on the redesign plan, with copies to the ETA human resources unit.

Secy Herman’s labor chief responded to the Union on July 30. He returned the Union’s request for bargaining on the ETA redesign plan saying that the request must be made with ETA, not with the Department or his office. He concluded saying, “Local 12’s submitting a request to bargain to the Department’s Labor-Management Relations Center does not preserve the Union’s contractual time frames to request bargaining. Absent the appropriate Agency Administrative Office receiving a timely request from Local 12 to bargain, the Union is viewed by the Agency as having waived it’s contractual rights, thereby permitting Agency management to proceed to implement.”

In response to the illegal pronouncements made by Secy Herman’s labor chief in his July 30 letter to the Union, the following August 2 letter was sent to the ETA human resources unit: “The recent Departmental position that AFGE 12 must request bargaining at the agency level for agency space and reorganizational changes is a continuing violation of the CBA. For your information, an arbitration case on this matter is pending. Therefore, we are requesting bargaining regarding the final WIA reorganization plan which was transmitted by your letter dated July 27, 1999.” Copies were sent to Acting Deputy Secy Edward Montgomery, Asst. Secy Patricia Lattimore, and Secy Herman’s labor chief Jerry Lelchook.
On August 6, ETA administrator Bryan Keilty gave the following answer to the Union’s August 2 request for bargaining on the ETA redesign plan. “ETA is in receipt of your letter dated August 2, 1999 to Ms. Lynn Masiello requesting bargaining on ETA’s reorganization.”

“On July 2, 1999, the ETA Local 12 Labor Management Relation (LMR) Committee, co-chaired by James Lawson, ETA’s Local 12 Agency Vice-President (AVP) and myself forwarded to Assistant Secretary Raymond Bramucci, a copy of the National Office Reorganization Consultation Team Report for implementation. The report and package were developed in full partnership with both union and management represented equally within the Team and approved in a consensus motion. Also, in the July 2nd memorandum, the parties stated that there were no outstanding issues relating to the reorganization.”

“In accordance with the Local 12 collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and Jerry Lelchook’s letter of July 30, 1999 (emphasis added), it is ETA’s position that the National Office Reorganization Consultation Team Report and Package is in total compliance with Article 35, Section 5c of the CBA and will be implemented as stated on August 7, 1999.”

“Regarding the approved reorganization report and package, I am sure the AVP is in a position to brief you on the partnership process that was used for the reorganization, the content of the reorganization report and package and/or any other questions concerning the approved plan.”

“Nevertheless, while there is no duty to bargain at this time, ETA management is always prepared to meet with the AVP and any other Union representatives to discuss any issues of mutual interest.” Copies were sent to Acting Deputy Secy Edward Montgomery, Asst. Secy Patricia Lattimore, and Secy Herman’s labor chief Jerry Lelchook.

On December 10, 1998, the Union sent a letter to then Deputy Secy Kathryn O. Higgins which in part said, “We are advising you that the President of AFGE 12 or his designee is the only official authorized to inform the Department of any outstanding issues regarding agency space or organizational changes...” “We have already notified your Office of Labor Relations by letter of April 24, 1998 that ‘the AFGE 12 President is the sole official to receive all final space plans and final approved organizational changes which are to be furnished to the Union.”

DOL’s illegal and unprincipled handling of the ETA reorganization is a routine occurrence for the Union in its dealings with Secy Herman’s union-busting reps.

The AFGE 12-DOL contract provides that “Upon receipt of the final approved organizational change, the Union will have five (5) workdays from receipt of the plan to request negotiations.” See Article 35, Sec. 5d, page 143 of the CBA. The Union believes that DOL’s refusal to honor this provision is a flagrant violation of law.

More importantly, the Union believes DOL is engaged in efforts to bust the Union and that it is actively working to undermine the Union leadership. The Union accuses DOL of cozying up with and rewarding those who will join then in their anti-union policies and illegal practices.

Many of the Union members feel that the union-busting at DOL is sanctioned by the kind of leadership that has been provided by the Clinton-Gore administration. And, it has stirred their interest in the kind of leadership former senator Bradley or some of the other presidential candidates would bring to DOL.

Is DOL Using Performance Awards to Illegally Buy Union Reps?
Union Wants to Know if Standards of Conduct were Violated
The Union sent the following letter dated Aug. 5, 1999 to Mr. Bryan Keilty who heads the Office of Financial and Administrative Management in ETA:

“Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. subsection 552, I am requesting access to all records which contain information on a reported cash award provided to Mr. James Lawson of ETA on or about June 1999. Please supply the records requested without informing me of the cost of this request provided the fees involved do not exceed $50 which I agree to pay.

Although I can appreciate the personal nature of the information requested, I believe it is in the public interest for this information to be provided. For many months prior to the reported time of the award and subsequent to it, Mr. Lawson, acting as an agent of AFGE 12, was involved in consultation with ETA on a proposed major reorganization as provided for under the DOL - AFGE 12 collective bargaining agreement. As a labor organization falling under the purview of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, AFGE 12 is responsible for maintaining the standards of conduct prescribed by the Statute under Section 7120. For this reason alone, I am requesting the release of information in this matter and ask that this request be given priority consideration.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption you think justifies your refusal to release the information and notify me of appeal procedures available under the law.” Signed Lawrence C. Drake Jr., Executive Vice President. cc: Acting Deputy Secretary Edward B. Montgomery and Assistant Secretary Patricia W. Lattimore

Arbitrator Restores Grade and Back Pay to Employee
Management Improperly Administers PIP
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs supervisor Edward Duncan proposed the demotion of an employee from a GS-12 to a GS-11, allegedly based on unsatisfactory job performance. OWCP deputy director Shelby Hallmark upheld Mr. Duncan’s proposal and the employee was demoted in January 1999, losing about $13,000 a year.

Arbitrator’s findings: Mr. Duncan failed to give the Grievant adequate feedback and notice about the Grievant’s performance prior to the mid-year review. This contravenes Article 12, Sec. 10. In addition, Mr. Duncan did not provide the Grievant with a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance as required under Article 12, Sec. 17(b). Based on this, both the PIP and the unsatisfactory performance appraisal for the rating period June 27, 1997 to April 30, 1998 are invalid.

Arbitrator’s award: The Grievance is upheld. The PIP and unsatisfactory performance appraisal for the rating period June 27, 1997 to April, 30, 1998 shall be removed from the Grievant’s record. Any documents related to these actions also shall be removed from the Grievant’s record. The Grievant shall be reinstated as a GS-12 Senior Claims Examiner. The Grievant shall receive back pay and any other benefits the Grievant would have received had the Grievant not been given an unacceptable performance rating.

One ETA Employee’s View - Employees May Be Adversely Affected by Reorganization
If ETA employees are not to be affected adversely by their agency’s reorganization, a number of critical details will need to be addressed. Solutions for them need to be found, and the question remains whether the solutions will be obtained through bargaining and a written, enforceable agreement or whether they will be management-driven and subject to change at any moment by management.

Special Meeting to Vote on Bylaws Changes
The AFGE 12 members will meet at 12 noon on Wednesday, September 29th in Conference Room N4437A-C of the Frances Perkins Building to vote on changes to its Bylaws.

Membership
Meeting
12:00 Noon, Thursday
August 26, 1999
Room N4437A-C
Frances Perkins Building